Legal prism — 2026-09-22

Article 147(3) of the Criminal Code provides that a victim may be exempted from criminal liability for a criminal offence that he or she was directly compelled to commit as a result of the act of trafficking in human beings committed against him or her.

The basic offence under Article 147 of the Criminal Code carries imprisonment from 2 to 10 years, while committing the offence against two or more persons or as part of an organised group carries imprisonment from 4 to 12 years.

Core issue

The persons in this account, both potential victims and pseudo-employment “intermediaries”, fall within the scope of Article 147 of the Criminal Code: trafficking in human beings for the purpose of forced labour, conditions of slavery, or compelling a person to commit a criminal offence is punishable by imprisonment from two to ten years. The key point absent from the account is that the victim’s consent to work or travel is legally irrelevant. Article 4(b) of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and Article 147 of the Criminal Code provide that consent is immaterial where at least one means of subjugating the person’s will has been used. The precise question to be determined is whether a fictitious job offer, debt bondage, confiscation of a passport, or the “Romeo” method constitutes the elements listed in Article 147 of the Criminal Code: recruitment, transportation, or holding in captivity by exploiting dependency or vulnerability, deception, or the giving of a benefit to a person exercising actual control over the victim.

Legal assessment

The Prosecutor General’s recommendations identify three groups of constituent elements that the prosecutor will have to prove:

• the acts: sale, purchase, transfer, acquisition, recruitment, transportation, or holding in captivity;
• the means of subjugating the person’s will: physical violence, threats, exploitation of dependency or vulnerability, deception, or the giving of money or another benefit to a person exercising control;
• the purpose of exploitation: conditions of slavery, sexual exploitation, forced labour, criminal activity, or other purposes. Criminal liability applies irrespective of the place where the offence was committed or the offender’s nationality, because Article 7(2) of the Criminal Code classifies trafficking in human beings among offences for which liability arises under international treaties. This means that a “scam factory” in Asia does not place the recruitment of a Lithuanian person outside the application of the Criminal Code. Legal persons also incur liability, including employment agencies or corporate employers, as this is expressly provided in Article 147-1(4), Article 292-1(2), and Article 157(4) of the Criminal Code. Separate provisions apply to those who merely use a victim’s forced labour or services while knowing of the exploitation. Such persons face imprisonment of up to two years but are exempt from liability if they voluntarily report to law enforcement and cooperate in identifying the victim. The most important safeguard for the victim is Article 147(3) of the Criminal Code: a person may be exempted from liability for a criminal offence that he or she was compelled to commit as a result of trafficking in human beings. This directly addresses the fear described in the account of “breaking the law themselves”, for example by working illegally or carrying out fraudulent schemes.

Consequences

In practical terms, this means that a company whose employees recruited people online or held them in conditions of debt bondage will be liable as a legal person, while the individual employees will be personally liable, facing up to ten years’ imprisonment for the basic offence and up to twelve years where aggravating circumstances are present. As regards the victim, the procedure should result in recognition of the person as a victim and exemption from liability for acts committed under compulsion, rather than deportation or punishment. Employers who do not formally cross the threshold into trafficking but employ illegal third-country nationals under exploitative working conditions face a separate offence under Article 292-1 of the Criminal Code, punishable by imprisonment of up to two years. Accordingly, the “employers” behind pseudo job offers cannot shield themselves through nuances of legal classification.

Correction. The article’s statement that substantial harm in the offence of abuse of office arises “only” once 250 MSLs (EUR 12,500) are exceeded lacks essential context. Cassation case law, for example rulings No. 2K-P-59-495-2021 and 2A-7-17, recognises that, depending on the circumstances of the case, substantial harm may also be found at a lower amount, for instance having regard to the victim’s financial position. A more accurate formulation would be that 250 MSLs is a generally applied guideline, not an absolute threshold, and courts are therefore not formally required to acquit solely because the harm is below EUR 12,500. It is also inaccurate to state that Article 108 of the Code of Administrative Offences provides a penalty “for 3 MSLs (EUR 150)”: the condition for applying the article is that the value of the property does not exceed three basic amounts of penalties and fines, while the fine is not fixed but ranges from EUR 90 to EUR 400.

Core issue

In the case of I. Tamašauskienė, the actual legal position is as follows: her application against Lithuania has already been declared admissible for examination by the ECtHR, meaning that the question of the Lithuanian State’s responsibility for criminal prosecution over the misappropriation of EUR 150 will be determined in Strasbourg by written procedure. The crux of the case is the threshold for legal classification: whether the misappropriation of EUR 150 (3 MSLs) can constitute abuse of office under Article 228 of the Criminal Code, which requires substantial harm, or whether it remains within the scope of an administrative offence under Article 108 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The second issue is whether the right to a fair and impartial hearing was breached, particularly given that comparable cases, such as the “receipt scandal” case involving Jonava Mayor M. Sinkevičius, were discontinued by the Supreme Court of Lithuania. Under Article 228(1) of the Criminal Code, abuse of office is punishable only where the State, a legal person, or a natural person has suffered substantial harm as a result; absent this mandatory element, criminal liability cannot arise. Under Article 183(4) of the Criminal Code, the misappropriation of another person’s property of minor value is classified as a criminal misdemeanour, while under paragraph 6 of the same article, a person is liable for acts under paragraphs 1 and 4 only where there is a complaint by the injured party, a statement by that party’s representative, or a prosecutor’s request.

Legal assessment

Under Article 228 of the Criminal Code, the convicted person was fined EUR 7,500; the penalties provided in paragraph 1 are a fine, arrest, or imprisonment for up to four years, and in paragraph 2, imprisonment for up to six years.

• Under Article 183(2) of the Criminal Code, misappropriation of high-value property is punishable by imprisonment for up to six years; however, under paragraph 4, a case involving property of minor value constitutes only a criminal misdemeanour.
• The Supreme Court case-law relied upon in the application establishes a quantitative threshold: substantial pecuniary harm is generally associated with harm exceeding 250 MSLs, i.e. EUR 12,500.
• In M. Sinkevičius’s case, in March 2025 the Supreme Court held that the lower courts had incorrectly interpreted the element of substantial harm and discontinued the case, because the amount unlawfully reimbursed was significantly below EUR 12,500 and the funds had been repaid.
• In that case, the Supreme Court also formulated a point of principle: the criminalisation of low-danger offences, without assessing the dangerousness of the conduct and the effectiveness of other branches of law, is inconsistent with the purpose of criminal legislation.
• In the sphere of public service, the definition of abuse of office describes only the nature of the conduct, not its automatic criminal-law assessment.
• The ECtHR will examine whether such a classification complies with the guarantees of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, where analogous or more extensive conduct in another case was found not to give rise to criminal liability.

Consequences

If the ECtHR finds a violation of the Convention, Lithuania may be required to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage, and grounds will arise for review of the conviction in domestic proceedings.

• If the ECtHR does not reject the application, a finding of a violation may encourage a practice whereby conduct falling below the threshold of 250 MSLs (EUR 12,500) is classified as administrative rather than criminal.
• For the State, this means not only possible compensation, but also the issue of consistency in judicial practice: divergent assessment of cases of the same type creates inequality in the application of criminal liability.
• For the convicted person, a successful case would, in practical terms, mean the possibility of seeking review of the conviction and repayment of the EUR 7,500 fine.

Under Article 3.192(3) of the Civil Code, both parents must provide financial support for their minor children in proportion to their financial circumstances.

Under Article 3.196(1) of the Civil Code, the court may award maintenance in the form of monthly periodic payments, a specific monetary amount, or by awarding certain property to the child.

Core issue

Since the daughter resides with her father, the mother may, in practical terms, become the party liable to pay child maintenance: the parents’ duty to provide financial support for their minor children applies to both parents irrespective of which parent has been designated as the child’s place of residence. The essence of the dispute will not be the determination of the child’s place of residence, but the application of Article 3.192(1) and (3) of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania: both parents must provide financial support in proportion to their financial circumstances, and the procedure and form of maintenance are determined by mutual agreement of the parents. If no agreement is reached, the matter is decided by the court under Article 3.194(1) and (2) of the Civil Code. The mother’s obligation would remain even if the child were separated from her: Article 3.195 of the Civil Code provides that the maintenance obligation remains where children are separated from their parents or parental authority is restricted.

Legal assessment

In applying these provisions, three issues are determined: the person subject to the obligation, the amount of maintenance, and the form of the award.

• Subject: under Article 3.192(3) of the Civil Code, both parents must provide financial support in proportion to their financial circumstances; the obligation does not depend on which parent is raising the child.
• Amount: under Article 3.192(2) of the Civil Code, maintenance must be proportionate to the child’s needs and the parents’ financial circumstances and must ensure the conditions necessary for the child’s development. In civil case No. 3K-3-471 (19 April 2000), the Supreme Court of Lithuania held that, under Article 21 of the Law on Fundamentals of Protection of the Rights of the Child, both parents are equally obliged to provide a minor child with housing; the Constitutional Court, in its ruling of 7 June 2007 (Official Gazette, 2007, No. 65-2529), assessed Lithuanian legislation concerning parents’ duty to financially support minor children as establishing state-supported protection of children’s welfare.
• Form: under Article 3.196(1) of the Civil Code, the court may award maintenance in the form of monthly periodic payments, a specific monetary amount, or by awarding certain suitable property to the child; paragraph 2 permits the court, by ruling, to order temporary maintenance pending resolution of the case.
• An amicable resolution may be facilitated by Article 3.193(1) of the Civil Code concerning a parental agreement approved by the court; if a court-approved agreement is not performed, the other parent acquires the right to apply for issuance of a writ of execution.
• Role of the child rights authority: the comment by G. Noliūtė, Head of the Child Rights Protection Division of Klaipėda County, reflects the practice whereby disagreements concerning place of residence, maintenance, and contact arrangements are resolved with the assistance of child rights advocates, mediators, or psychologists.

Consequences

If B. Navickaitė agrees, a court-approved agreement on the amount, procedure, and form of maintenance is possible; in that case, no judicial dispute is necessary, and non-performance gives rise to grounds for issuing a writ of execution.

• If no agreement is reached, P. Gražulis, as the father with whom the child’s place of residence has been established, has the right to apply to the court for an award of maintenance under Article 3.194(1) of the Civil Code; the claimant may also be the child’s guardian or the state child rights protection authority.
• Maintenance is awarded as a monthly payment or as a specific monetary amount until the child reaches majority; in determining the amount, the court will assess the mother’s financial circumstances and the child’s needs.
• For the mother, this means a periodic payment obligation with the possible risk of issuance of an enforceable document; for the child, it means guaranteed maintenance. For the parties, the matter must be resolved not in the media but through agreement or legal process.
• Tracking point: the next step would be either the conclusion of a parental agreement on maintenance and its submission to the court for approval, or the filing of a claim for an award of maintenance.

Under Article 4(1), all natural and legal persons are required to comply with and implement international sanctions applicable in Lithuania, while Article 4(3) provides that the fact that sanctions apply is recorded in state registers.

Article 13-1(2): liability may arise for breach of the obligation to freeze the funds or resources of a sanctioned entity, while Article 13(3) provides for the liability of legal persons where the violation does not give rise to criminal liability.

Core issue

For two individuals, A. Usmanov and M. Fridman, the EU has provisionally agreed to lift listing sanctions; however, until a final decision is adopted, they remain in Lithuania “persons subject to sanctions” within the meaning of Article 2(4) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on International Sanctions. The more precise question is when and how the delisting will become binding on Lithuanian entities, and what will happen if they disregard it. The answer is determined by Article 6(1) of the Law, under which sanctions established by EU legal acts are implemented in full, and by Articles 13 and 13-1, as amended on 15 May 2025, which establish liability for violations. For the remaining nearly 3,000 persons and entities, the sanctions are being extended for three years, changing the compliance planning horizon for Lithuanian companies.

Legal assessment

Until the journalistic report about the agreement is transformed into an EU legal act, namely a delisting regulation, Lithuanian banks, notaries and other entities must continue to apply the freezing of funds and economic resources as defined in Article 2(1) and 2(2), meaning the prohibition of any movement, transfer or use. The competent authorities under Article 11(1) and 11(3), namely the Financial Crime Investigation Service, the Ministry of Finance and the Customs Department, decide on exemptions and respond to inquiries; the implementation procedure is set by the Government. Paragraph 70 of the Description applicable to the gambling sector shows that internal control procedures of other supervised entities must also be reviewed “more frequently, for example, when the requirements of legal acts establishing international sanctions change” - a change in the list is precisely such a moment. M. Fridman himself has chosen a legal remedy, a EUR 15 billion action against the EU over the sanctions, illustrating that listing decisions may be challenged before the courts.

Consequences

If no EU Member State submits a written objection in the coming hours, the delisting will be enacted by an EU legal act and, under Article 6(1), will take effect automatically in Lithuania: pursuant to Article 4(4), the Financial Crime Investigation Service will provide information to register administrators, and the freezing measures in respect of these two individuals will cease to apply. For the remaining listed persons and entities, the three-year extension means that Lithuanian companies with links to sanctioned entities must plan compliance measures over a horizon of years rather than six months.

Under Article 149(1) of the Criminal Code, rape committed by taking advantage of the helpless condition of the victim is punishable by imprisonment from one to seven years.

Under Article 149(5) of the Criminal Code, a person is liable for rape only upon the victim’s complaint, a statement by the victim’s lawful representative, a prosecutor’s request, or the initiation of a pre-trial investigation on grounds indicating domestic violence.

Core issue

The situation depicted in Emilija’s story should, under the current wording of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, be legally assessed under Article 149(1) (Rape), which criminalises sexual intercourse against a person’s will by “taking advantage of the helpless condition of the victim” and provides for a penalty of imprisonment from one to seven years. The precise legal question raised is whether Lithuanian criminal law will define the elements of sexual violence by reference to the absence of the victim’s active resistance (the coercion model) or by reference to the absence of consent. This assessment will be based on Articles 149, 150 and 151 of the Criminal Code, which currently require violence, threats, or another form of deprivation of the ability to resist; Article 150 additionally provides for the “helpless condition of the victim.”

Legal assessment

Under the current regulation, the essential evidentiary issue in Emilija’s case would be her resistance or helpless condition, not whether Martynas obtained consent. The following provisions would apply:

• Article 149(1) of the Criminal Code: rape is punishable by imprisonment from 1 to 7 years where physical violence was used, threats of such violence were made, the victim’s ability to resist was removed, or the victim’s helpless condition was exploited;
• Article 150(1) of the Criminal Code: sexual assault (by anal, oral or other physical contact) committed by the same means is likewise punishable by imprisonment from 1 to 7 years;
• Articles 149(5) and 150(5) of the Criminal Code: both offences are subject to private prosecution with exceptions, meaning liability arises only upon the victim’s complaint, a statement by the victim’s lawful representative, a prosecutor’s request, or the initiation of a pre-trial investigation on grounds indicating domestic violence;
• Article 151(1) of the Criminal Code: coercion to engage in sexual intercourse by threats or by exploiting dependency is punishable by imprisonment for up to 5 years, also subject to a complaint requirement (Article 151(3)).

Emilija’s dissociation, namely freezing and losing the ability to speak, is not an independent basis for prosecution under this model; it is relevant only insofar as it helps establish a helpless condition within the meaning of Article 149(1). The author’s criticised proposition that “the coercion model is outdated” is supported, in the context of EU law, only by the fact stated in the report that 18 EU Member States have already moved to a lack-of-consent model. Attention should also be drawn to Article 152 of the Criminal Code (sexual harassment), a criminal misdemeanour applicable only in respect of a dependent person and only upon the victim’s complaint (Article 152(2)); this shows that the concept of “consent” does not operate directly in the current Criminal Code.

Consequences

If the Seimas adopts legislation establishing a consent model, the positions of defendants and victims would be distributed as follows:

• the victim would no longer need to prove active resistance; it would be sufficient to establish that consent was absent;
• the defendant would have to take into account that initiating sexual contact without consent itself would constitute an independent element of the offence.

Conversely, if Articles 149-151 of the Criminal Code are not amended, cases of Emilija’s type will continue to depend on the complaint requirement (Article 149(5)) and on proof of resistance. The statistics cited in the report, namely up to one hundred registered sexual violence offences per year under Articles 149 and 150 of the Criminal Code, half of them against minors, indicate that the application of these provisions is highly limited, while leniency in cases of dissociation contributes to the fact that most victims do not contact law enforcement at all. However, if the understanding of consent is harmonised across the EU, the practice of international cooperation could also change, since liability for certain offences under Article 7 of the Criminal Code does not depend on citizenship or the place where the offence was committed. The practical consequence for policymakers is the need to consider whether the complaint requirement in Article 150(5) is consistent with the logic of the consent model.

Under Article 8(1) of the Law on the Management, Use and Disposal of State and Municipal Assets, the functions of owner of municipal assets are performed by municipal councils, while Article 12(1) provides that decisions on the transfer of municipal property are adopted by the council or by asset managers authorised by it.

Under paragraph 35 of the Description, the asset manager may terminate a loan-for-use agreement without a separate council decision or mayoral decree only on the grounds provided for in the agreement.

Core issue

For the Alytus Aeroclub, this situation amounts to the de facto loss of use of municipal buildings before the legal dispute has been finally resolved: the locks were changed not by bailiffs, but by municipal employees accompanied by the police, which, in the assessment of the Aeroclub’s representatives, exceeds the municipality’s powers. The key legal question is whether, in terminating relations under a loan-for-use agreement, the municipality may resort to self-help measures, or whether it must rely solely on judicial protection under the provisions of the Civil Code governing ownership and loan-for-use relations, as well as Articles 8 and 12 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Management, Use and Disposal of State and Municipal Assets. The second question is procedural: under the Description of the Procedure for Asset Management approved by Alytus City Municipal Council Decision No. T-14 of 30 January 2019, a decision to transfer municipal property on the basis of loan for use and to terminate a loan-for-use agreement is adopted by the municipal council or the mayor, while the asset manager may terminate a loan-for-use agreement without a separate council decision only “on the grounds provided for in the agreement” (paragraph 35 of the Description). The third question concerns the separation of land and buildings: the Aeroclub states that it has the right to use approximately 100 hectares of land until 2078, meaning that the takeover of the buildings also affects the continuity of the land-use relationship.

Legal assessment

Under local self-government Description No. T-14, property may be transferred on the basis of loan for use only to budgetary institutions, public institutions, associations, and foundations pursuing specific social objectives (subparagraphs 16.1-16.3, amendment of 29 February 2024). The Aeroclub does not fall within these categories, and therefore the basis for its use of the buildings was most likely another contractual arrangement, the validity of which is disputed by the parties. For the municipality’s position, it is significant that, under paragraph 35 of the Description, the asset manager may terminate a loan-for-use agreement without a separate council decision or mayoral decree if the relevant grounds are set out in the agreement itself. For the Aeroclub’s position, it is significant that the court’s lifting of interim protective measures does not in itself give the municipality the right to physically take possession of the premises; this must be done through enforcement proceedings or contractual mechanisms, not by unilateral acts of self-help. The municipality’s right to defend its interests in court is confirmed by Article 69(1) of the Law on Local Self-Government, but that same provision also means that municipalities defend their rights through the courts, rather than by unilateral coercion. Article 63 provides that the procedure for managing municipal property is established by the Constitution, laws, Government resolutions, and municipal council decisions. The Aeroclub’s planned referral to the prosecutor’s office will be assessed by reference to whether the actions of municipal employees constitute a criminal or administrative offence.

Consequences

The decision of 29 September will determine whether the land loan-for-use relationship with the Aeroclub will remain in place, but even a favourable decision concerning the land would not automatically restore access to the buildings in which aircraft, equipment, and documentation remain. If the Aeroclub proves that the property was locked without a legal basis, the realistic course of action would be a claim for access or for compensation for losses. The legal costs for this year cited by the Aeroclub’s representatives amount to EUR 20,000, and the dispute has been ongoing for more than a decade. A successful outcome for the municipality would open the way for the use of the property in business development projects; the value of the project launched in 2026 is approximately EUR 7.59 million.

If the charge is not paid within the period laid down in the municipal regulations, administrative liability applies under Article 418 of the Code of Administrative Offences: for a first offence, a fine of EUR 20 to EUR 40; for a repeated offence within one year, EUR 40 to EUR 100.

The Trakai District regulations provide, in the event of non-payment of the charge, a 72-hour period to pay the prescribed amount irrespective of the duration of parking on that day.

Core issue

For a driver who has received a notice concerning an unpaid parking charge, the initial risk is financial rather than legal: payment of the daily charge within the prescribed period prevents the initiation of administrative offence proceedings. Administrative liability under Article 418 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania applies only if the charge is not paid within the period laid down in the municipal regulations: for a first offence, a fine of EUR 20 to EUR 40; for a repeated offence within one year, EUR 40 to EUR 100. The specific legal issue, namely whether the infringement will be resolved by payment of the charge or will become an administrative offence, is determined under Article 418 of the Code of Administrative Offences and the local charge regulations approved by the municipal council, since Article 11(1)(6) of the Law on Charges authorises municipalities to collect a charge for the use of parking spaces designated by the council.

Legal assessment

The basis of the two-stage mechanism is local self-government legislation. The Vilnius City regulations (Council Decision No. 1-127 of 13 July 2011) provide that, upon expiry of paid parking time where payment is made through a mobile communications operator, the driver must immediately pay an additional charge or leave the paid parking space; it is precisely the failure to comply with this obligation that is recorded by inspectors or enforcement vehicles reading registration plates. Subparagraph 13.3 of the Siauliai City regulations governs the leaving of a notice and the procedure for paying the charge by 24:00 on the following day, while the Trakai District regulations provide, in the event of non-payment, a 72-hour period to pay the prescribed amount irrespective of the duration of parking on that day. The Vilnius zone tariffs (from 1 July 2025, approximately EUR 96 per day in the blue zone) are a municipal act, not a statutory provision. A disproportionality should be noted: in the blue zone, the daily charge (approximately EUR 96) exceeds even the upper limit of the fine range for a first offence under Article 418 of the Code of Administrative Offences, namely EUR 40, because the charge is calculated according to the daily tariff for the zone, whereas the fine is based on a fixed statutory range. If the charge is not paid, the municipality recovers it in accordance with its own legal acts, for example, under the procedure for recovery of arrears approved by Order No. 30-2127/20 of the Director of the Vilnius City Municipal Administration of 1 September 2020; in addition, grounds arise for drawing up an administrative offence report under Article 418 of the Code of Administrative Offences. Related offences should be distinguished: non-payment of a charge for entry into state-protected territories or municipal reserves falls under Article 419 of the Code of Administrative Offences (with fines of the same amounts), while breach of the rules on entry into low-emission zones falls under Article 419¹ of the Code (EUR 40 to EUR 80, and EUR 80 to EUR 200 for a repeated offence); those provisions do not apply to ordinary unpaid parking in an urban zone.

Consequences

In practical terms, the course available to the driver depends on the speed of the response and the zone:

• If the charge is paid within the period laid down in the regulations, no administrative offence report is drawn up and no fine under Article 418 of the Code of Administrative Offences is incurred.
• If the charge is ignored, two payments become due: the unpaid daily charge and a fine of EUR 20 to EUR 40, or, for a repeated offence within one year, EUR 40 to EUR 100.
• Assessment of the financial choice: in the blue zone, the amount of the charge may exceed the amount of the fine, so in some cases it may be more rational to wait for the offence report, which may optimise the final total cost.